CCMIN021803 - Laserfiche WebLink

Scott Criambruno, 451 Junipero Street, supported continuing the Sunol metering program. He hoped Council would support the staff recommendation to keep it in place throughout the construction at Applied Biosystems. Adding three to five minutes of travel time is minimal considering the positive impacts farther down the line. He was not in favor of Bernal metering. Now that Sunol is metered, he uses Bemal. He agreed there needs to be access for the Castlewood area and those on Foothill Road. Bemal seems to flow well. One concern he has in using the Bernal exit is the traffic signal near the ramp. When it is red, traffic backs up close to the freeway and he is concerned about being hit. Fortunately it usually tums green and he has avoided being hit. He asked staff to increase the green time on that signal for those exiting the freeway. He is concerned about the traffic generated by Applied Biosystems and wanted it diverted to the freeway and not through town. He requested a left turn signal from Junipero onto Sunol and from Case onto Sunol. The signs have served their purpose in Pleasanton Hills and he agreed they should stay up, at least until Applied Biosystems is occupied and the impacts of its employee traffic is known. A study should be done to show the positive impacts of those signs. Michael Stremme, 608 Merlot Court, was opposed to the metering lights on Sunol. It has caused an average of five minutes extra to his commute. When you use the figure of 1000 cars, that is 83 idling hours per hour (sic). It has added 25 minutes to his drive. While it tries to keep people from using City streets to get to Livermore, it also keeps people who live in Pleasanton from being able to access their homes in an efficient manner. The solution for one problem is causing ten other problems for other people. By moving the metering lights back to Arlington, it creates a danger of being hit by cars coming offthe freeway. Another issue with the metering, as well as the sign on Puerto Vallart~ is the lack of enforcement. This is not a traffic issue, it is lack of having police presence to keep people from driving in lanes they should not be using, making illegal U-tums, illegal left tums, etc. He seldom sees a police presence in the area. He said his three issues were lack of enforcement, waste of gasoline, and imposing congestion on other neighborhoods. Bob Hucker, 4998 Dolores Drive, felt the Puerto Vallarta and Dolores Drive signs should be a separate agenda item considered earlier in the evening. It is not fair to consider this so late in the evening. Many people have had to leave. He did not feel it was fair for the City to remove the signs since they have only been there for a month. It took a very long time to get them installed; longer than they have been installed. He also felt the signs should not be connected with metering. Metering was not discussed in the many meetings to get the signs for Pleasanton Hills. Cut through traffic was the sole topic of discussion. Metering affects only afternoon cut through traffic and there is also a problem in Pleasanton Hills with morning cut-through traffic. The signs affect morning and afternoon and should not be removed. Other things have been discussed at this meeting about Vineyard, First Street, parts of Bemal, but there is no question that Dolores Drive and Puerto Vallarta Drive are residential streets and not any kind of thoroughfare. We are not the Raley's driveway or a commuter route. Any decision to remove the signs will only dump traffic onto a hilly, windy, residential street. We finally got rid of a lot of the traffic with the signs; although we would like more enforcement. There has been some worsening of traffic since the signs were installed. He has heard that the City wants to remove the signs because it does not want other neighborhoods to ask for similar restrictions and the police don't like the signs because of enforcement problems. He believed the police should be in Pleasanton City Council 16 02/18/03 Minutes